myata

That other minor issue, of mass foreign immigration, eventually appropriating the land they settled upon from the indigenous population, of couse, isn't even worth mentioning (or noticing), correct Rue? I mean did it even happen, maybe not? In my objective vision. All depends on where and how we set the point of reference, that Day 1. I set it before my somewhat questionnable acts, I have to worry and have uncomfortable feelings; I move it a few (decades, years, days) over, and voila - I'm in full moral right, protecting, defending and so on. That's the easy part, Rue! We hear at all the time, x,000 times a day, no need to repeat it. The only question is, if and how it's going to help you find peace with those people who felt great injustice and offence in that event that haven't even happened in your framework of historic reference?

Fixed election dates, anybody?

And of course, in the whole wide world, only we of all the people would know how to identify it, deal with it, and overcome it. Is it really the burning desire to help? Or feeling better, superior than them who won't be ever, in principle and by definition, able to help themselves? Sort out their affairs on their terms, and in their own time? And so, needing that gentle guiding hand...

That too. Can be an interesting point for discussion. We disallow smoking in a car with kids, what about conceiving a child while heavily drunk? Or, even more importantly than sanctions, providing meanigful early intervention to people with problems (alcoholism, addiction) and their children?

Not at all. If pumping arms and money to friendlies must be a condition of our "humanitarian" aid (quelle creativite - we're known for that, our claim to fame after all!), the world will be better off without no aid at all. Or shall we say, state sponsored aid. Individuals can donate directly to the UN, which will distribute it to the individuals in need. Sure warlords would be a problem, but on a quite different scale, like a few orders of magnitude down, from our overreaching and never relenting assistance. Like those guys who lend you five bucks, then want your house, wife and eternal gratitude in return.

Certainly we could leave aid and assistance to the UN. I.e. cut out military and not so economical as financial backing aid. Seem good for everybody (us, UN, the sides in the conflict). So what's our problem? We sooooo want to be helpful that we just can't help pumping arms (i.e money to buy them) into already troubled zone?

What a stereotypical bs. If a kid of 8-10-12, instead (or on top) of principal talk will get a serious lecture from daddy/mommy, because they had to shell out a few bucks for that broken window / stolen bike, etc., at least it would leave a mark in their brain and memory. And if the buck comes from welfare check, so be it. It's not like getting on welare relieves one of all responsibilities, no. Another point that perhaps should be made a bit clearer, to some.

I'm glad to see a real movement on this important issue: NB bill: parents to pay for children's crimes. Bravo, NB! Not pointless "get tough" sentences when kids are already deep into trouble; something real, however small, to show them that crime is a no-no (show, not tell!) when they're only starting to play with the idea. It should be taken up by all provinces. As well as the general principle: more meaningful and clear sanctions, including steep material responsibility, for the crime, either alternative, or coincidental to jail. And not forgetting to deal with the root causes, goes without saying.

Maybe a less expensive solution would be to stop messing into their affairs (including taking sides) and let them sort out their problems however, and whenever they can? If only we could resist our helpful nature...

Because whatever we do out of self interest is the "right" thing? Otherwise, wouldn't the results, actual, physical, on the ground, be different from those of the "wrong" thing?

I see, and it even comes with a bonus mandatory obligation to peddle (on occasion, force and shove) the product to the others (of course, wrapped very nicely with shiny and frilly freedom/democracy ribbons). Giving one a rare moral satisfaction (because it's the right thing to do, and also for their own sake), and the feeling of moral superiority (they must be really bad, to resist my benevolent intervention), even if / when project isn't going exactly as foreseen.

We already discussed that zero sum strategy in another thread. Just as long as everybody's aware what they're buying (into).

That's certainly one way of looking at things. Master Zorg summarized it very well in the "Fifth Element" and I really don't see how much incessant blaring of justice and democracy could add to it.

... because of his position on certain issues (from your source, courtesy Alta4ever): "In 2002, Flanagan wrote a controversial book called “First Nations? Second Thoughts” espousing the idea that Aboriginal people were merely immigrants and the best thing for all involved would be assimilating them into mainstream culture." You know what, I can't be wasting much more of my time reading your own sources for you folks, but of course, you're free to continue. Just don't forget to read it before posting.

No, and I supplied a detailed comment to each item. Have you?

That would be a valid point for a discussion, but perhaps, Harpers' folks didn't notice. Throwing mud is a lot easier than disputing, and could it be that Harper's being caucious about entering into intelligent polemics in this particular case? We'll see come public debates. Well yes, we don't really have any facts or arguments to substantiate that, so we'll just keep repeating it ad infinitum and it'll somehow become true.

Your saying so does not make it true, by itself. Everybody can see the difference between overblown, inaccurate, and tasteless polemics on issues, and purely personality ads used by Harper. In the latest roung I saw absolutely nothing about Ignatieff's position on issues, they're based entirely on facts of his personal life. I wonder if Harper's folks really can't find anything of substance, or they just forgot how to do it, because throwing sh.. by megatonne is so much easier?

You must be having trouble reading your own link. I'll help: "The five spots unveiled in mid-May are based on previous comments made by Harper on issues from immigration and Atlantic Canada to Canada's participation in the Iraq war. " As you see, I'm always willing to admit the fact, as well as arguments supported by logic, but there has to be either.

OK, I'd prefer it all to be in one post, the quantity isn't replacement of quality (or even sense). #1 Stockwell Day: Certainly "his past comments" on important issues are very important to understanding individual, so I'm not getting how it's gotten anything to do with personal attack ads a la "he's a monster alien"? Personal beliefs of somebody is a more sensitive issues, I see how it can be overblown, yet, given the importance of the office, some questions should certainly be asked. Mockery of pure personal beliefs (Barney) crosses the line in my mind, but strong personal beliefs, especially those of near orthodox flavour, as with Mr Day's should be brought out to public attention and discussed. Just so that we know how our would be leader would react to voices from above. #2 Army in the City (US style ads) This was certainly stupid, misleading, and lame, but still by far does not equate to the personal attacks we're seeing from Harper. #3 Hammer Ads I haven't seen those, and they are in poor taste, but they highlight the issue (proximity of Harper's mentality to Bushes conqests) and not really the same as Harpers purely personal attacks on Dion and Ignatieff. I couldn't see the youtube ad at this time to comment. Anyways, its clear that Harpers people have broken a completely new grond here, from questionnable and misleading polemics around issues, to purely 100% personal denigration. As I said previously, this is the rock bottom (in the downward direction started by Liberals in the previous campaigns, as I can concede), it's stupid and disgusting, and nothing from the other guys should justify it, and I hope that most Canadians would take them as a measure of maturity and intelligence of those who ordered and created them, instead of intended impact on their target.

To be honest (and I'm trying to be honest here, not being a huge fan of Chretien myself), I can't quite recall them using even remotely close (in their meanness, personal thrust, nastiness, absolute and final absence of any meaningful information, etc) tactics of campaigning, as those that have become inseparable from Harper. Perhaps, you can help us refresh our collective memories?

Of course, we want to be completely oblivious and / or ignorant to what happened before the "first day", or how "it became", etc. It's fully in our right as well to always expect (from others) top notch peaceful and moral behaviours (like coming out with hugs and kisses, when we hit their car; or "appropriated" their land, and declared it our state, etc; just like us, remember? 9/11, Iraq, Guantanamo? Those truly peaceful examples of democratic endurance, justice and tolerance). Always keeping them to this highest standard of morality, ourselves, granted, soaring too high above to notice it (or think, for a minute, that it could also have some applicability - here, i.e. to ourselves - what a nonsense, really!).

No, the contradiction exists only in your mind. Ongoing interference in supporting one side despite its highly questionable strategies, and pumping arms and money to friendlies to help them stay in power, is a doubtful long term strategy for a lasting peace. It is also the same strategy that created these problems in the first place, and continues to feed resentment and hate in the region.

I like to have my information first hand. From all sources. I can handle sorting it out. Well, maybe the "defining strategy" would take a different turn, than intended by the designer. Just like that "funding strategy" in December. As much as defining its target, this message also defines its sender. And somehow, they come out as shallow, billigerent, mean and loudmouth, as the worst of individual targeted politics could probably be. Surprise there.

You're finding there a contradiction? I think it only further confirms my point. Building peace by pumping arms and money into friendly regimes, how original!

In case somebody hasn't had an opportunity to see them - they're on right now on the Global. Wow. Rock bottom indeed. Well, at least Harper has defined his potential electorate, and I sincerely hope it'll be counted in single digits. I mean people with that special sort of intelligence to enjoy this kind of "information" simply cannot be a majority, it'd be a complete disaster for the country! Well, looks like Harper is indeed busy hitting last nails into his political coffin. Having started the process, singlehandledly and with no assistance, in December. Godspeed to him, we'll all be very grateful!